bickster Posted October 27, 2022 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, KentVillan said: All a bit baffling. Sunak surely doesn't actually rate Braverman. I think they are very close to each other politically, certainly on her pet subject of immigration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 27, 2022 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2022 4 minutes ago, KentVillan said: Yes but it wasn't about his own 100 threshold, it was about stopping Johnson from reaching it. In hindsight, it seems unnecessary, but guess they got spooked by Johnson's claims of nearing 100... or maybe they thought Mordaunt might sneak on. They already knew by then that Johnson was sunk, they called him out on the 100 claim on the Sunday morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 Why did he do a grubby deal with her then? I’m sure Starmer would know he didn’t give her the job for nothing given her recent past. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 17 hours ago, bickster said: No, prime example, Edward Heath calling a General Election in February 1974 because he wanted a mandate to deal with the Miners Strike and the economic situation the country was in (3 day week etc). He didn't need to call an election because he had a majority and could have carried on for another 15 months or so. He did it because he wanted a mandate from the people. It was a gamble and one he lost as the country then had a Labour minority Government. Thorpes Liberals were the real winners though as the two major parties both decreased their share of the vote and the Liberals gained But anyway, he definitely put the country first and party second. It's a great example but it's nearly 50 years ago. In reference to Starmers party before country comment, my point was specifically about modern day politicians. Everything I see suggests they are all party before country, Heath feels very much the exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 27, 2022 Author Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2022 27 minutes ago, Genie said: Why did he do a grubby deal with her then? I’m sure Starmer would know he didn’t give her the job for nothing given her recent past. The original media reports of her resignation suggested (perhaps wrongly in terms of the "offence") that it was a minor technical offence, she resigned on the premise of honour etc. but really as a means to slate Truss in her resignation letter and thus trigger Truss's downfall. That she did this as some sort of deal with Sunak, that he'd give her her job back if he then won. On Sunday it was suggested that her backing of Sunak publicly took not just her vote to him, but those of the ERG throbbers, or most of them, to him too, and away from Johnson, so definitely ensuring he wouldn't have enough. It now seems that her actual "offence", may have been significantly more serious than initially reported/rumoured. So it's an odd one - was it a minor technical breach, used as a ruse to kill off Truss and then Johnson, or was it a serious breach of security? The first is just grubby politics and the second is much more serious and if it's right, then she should be toast. Same as Williamson, Fox, Patel and others. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, blandy said: The original media reports of her resignation suggested (perhaps wrongly in terms of the "offence") that it was a minor technical offence, she resigned on the prmise of honour etc. but really as a means to slate Truss in her resignation letter and thus trigger Truss's downfall. That she did this as some sort of deal with Sunak, that he'd give her her job back if he then won. On Sunday it was suggested that her backing of Sunak publicly took not just her vote to him, but those of the ERG throbbers, or most of them, to him too, and away from Johnson, so definitely ensuring he wouldn't have enough. It now seems that her actual "offence", may have been significantly more serious than initially reported/rumoured. So it's an odd one - was it a minor technical breach, used as a ruse to kill off Truss and then Johnson, or was it a serious breach of security? The first is just grubby politics and the second is much more serious and if it's right, then she should be toast. Same as Williamson, Fox, Patel and others. And now we learn she has previous for being a bit loose with important information. Maybe Sunak could have rode this storm about the home email account out. If he knew about the MI5 thing and he still gave her the job then it’s him in hot water. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 27, 2022 Author Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: modern day politicians. Everything I see suggests they are all party before country I think that's mistaken, at least in part. I guess there's two ways to show my thinking. Individuals and issues. On the issues. Take Brexit - loads of MPs opposed their own party on Brexit, because of the damage they perceived their party line would do to the Country - e.g. overturning a democratic vote of the people or causing huge damage to the nation by leaving / leaving with a bad deal (as they saw it). On the individuals, there are plenty who have campaigned away on all sorts of things that matter to them and their constituents or to the wider nation - take Fracking, for example. On specific people Caroline Lucas, or Sarah Woolaston, or Sarah Champion. There's actually loads. Quite a lot of them being women, but not exclusively so. Some of the worst are also women, so it's no guarantee. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 11 minutes ago, blandy said: The original media reports of her resignation suggested (perhaps wrongly in terms of the "offence") that it was a minor technical offence, she resigned on the premise of honour etc. but really as a means to slate Truss in her resignation letter and thus trigger Truss's downfall. That she did this as some sort of deal with Sunak, that he'd give her her job back if he then won. On Sunday it was suggested that her backing of Sunak publicly took not just her vote to him, but those of the ERG throbbers, or most of them, to him too, and away from Johnson, so definitely ensuring he wouldn't have enough. It now seems that her actual "offence", may have been significantly more serious than initially reported/rumoured. So it's an odd one - was it a minor technical breach, used as a ruse to kill off Truss and then Johnson, or was it a serious breach of security? The first is just grubby politics and the second is much more serious and if it's right, then she should be toast. Same as Williamson, Fox, Patel and others. It has since transpired, though, that this isn't what happened. The offence was presented to her. Maybe she kidded Sunak that she was resigning to bring Truss down. I think more likely is that Sunak was genuinely panicky about Johnson/Mordaunt making the member ballot, and did the deal to ensure he would be PM - backing himself to ride out any storm OR deluding himself that Braverman as Home Sec wouldn't be a big deal - or, as Bicks suggests, he genuinely agrees with her and wanted her on his team, which is a definite possibility given some of the stuff he said during the first leadership campaign. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 27, 2022 Author Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2022 43 minutes ago, KentVillan said: he genuinely agrees with her and wanted her on his team, which is a definite possibility given some of the stuff he said during the first leadership campaign. I said the same, in terms of them having similar views on Rwanda and asylum seekers etc. the other day, so yes there's definitely overlap. It's also the case that having variety of both gender and "wing" of the baby eaters is something he needed to do, so there's that, too. I don't think she kidded Sunak - he'll know exactly what the sequence of events has been. The letter Sue Ellen wrote absolutely did (pretty well done it was too) knife Truss. So that part is true. But really...they're all tories, and so, y'know...whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, blandy said: I said the same, in terms of them having similar views on Rwanda and asylum seekers etc. the other day, so yes there's definitely overlap. It's also the case that having variety of both gender and "wing" of the baby eaters is something he needed to do, so there's that, too. I don't think she kidded Sunak - he'll know exactly what the sequence of events has been. The letter Sue Ellen wrote absolutely did (pretty well done it was too) knife Truss. So that part is true. But really...they're all tories, and so, y'know...whatever. Do we really think Braverman brought Truss down, though? I just didn't see it that way - Truss was on borrowed time already and the knives were out all over the place. It seems much more likely to me that any "deal" related to keeping Boris off the ballot, but then there are also some flaws in that argument, too. A weird one, certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 27, 2022 Author Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2022 1 minute ago, KentVillan said: Do we really think Braverman brought Truss down, though? I just didn't see it that way - Truss was on borrowed time already and the knives were out all over the place. They were, I agree. She was absolutely on borrowed time. I strongly think it was probably the straw that broke the camel's back, but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 27, 2022 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, blandy said: They were, I agree. She was absolutely on borrowed time. I strongly think it was probably the straw that broke the camel's back, but who knows? If it hadn't been Braverman it would have been the next one out of the traps or the next one and they were probably queuing up. It's no different to Pincher and Johnson. Each time they push and push until the defence just crumbles Braverman was lucky I suppose that it was her, could easily have been the next contender or the next 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 17 hours ago, blandy said: They were, I agree. She was absolutely on borrowed time. I strongly think it was probably the straw that broke the camel's back, but who knows? I thought it was the vote on fracking that was the final straw. But she would have gone anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 28, 2022 Moderator Share Posted October 28, 2022 1 minute ago, PaulC said: I thought it was the vote on fracking that was the final straw. But she would have gone anyway. Could have been, there were many straws to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post choffer Posted October 28, 2022 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted October 28, 2022 “We need a soundtrack to our new film about how awesome Rishi is. Any suggestion?” ”how about a Gary Glitter song?” 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 16 minutes ago, choffer said: “We need a soundtrack to our new film about how awesome Rishi is. Any suggestion?” ”how about a Gary Glitter song?” I had to check this was real. How can anyone think this is a good idea? Are they trying to be deliberately terrible at politics? Are they just openly taking the piss? It's astonishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 28, 2022 Moderator Share Posted October 28, 2022 3 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I had to check this was real. How can anyone think this is a good idea? Are they trying to be deliberately terrible at politics? Are they just openly taking the piss? It's astonishing. If there's a wrong choice, they'll usually make it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ml1dch Posted October 28, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted October 28, 2022 (edited) 58 minutes ago, choffer said: “We need a soundtrack to our new film about how awesome Rishi is. Any suggestion?” ”how about a Gary Glitter song?” "We need some music from an artist that gives the impression of superficially wanting to be the leader, but in reality we know that we're just going to end up abusing the trust of the most vulnerable. Any ideas?" Edited October 28, 2022 by ml1dch 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted October 28, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted October 28, 2022 1 hour ago, choffer said: “We need a soundtrack to our new film about how awesome Rishi is. Any suggestion?” ”how about a Gary Glitter song?” That is unbe-f***ing-lievable. If Saville was still alive they would be organising Jim'll Fix it live in a maternity hospital. This has GOT to stop. GET THEM OUT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 1 hour ago, choffer said: “We need a soundtrack to our new film about how awesome Rishi is. Any suggestion?” ”how about a Gary Glitter song?” Admittedly I've never listened to Gary Glitter, but sounds like Black Skinhead by Kanye West to me, however that's not much better right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts